ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
I looked them over and found deficiencies.
None worthy of mentioning apparently. I wonder why?
Wikipedia is ok for anything non-controversial. This is a controversial subject. Anybody can write or edit Wikipedia articles.
I've noted that myself, just above. Even for controversial subjects, or maybe especially, it is still very worthwhile for the overviews and especially the references.
The article in Forbes is by James Taylor who founded his own stupid three member foundation in March last year see its registration info and is a keynote speaker for coal industry events, such as the Reno Energy "Forum" see here which is sponsored by some coal lobby called the Coalition of Energy Users see here. The man is covered in soot and marketing gimmicks, but he's nobody to trust on a subject he calls 'Climate Gate'. He paints his 'Foundation' credentials all over as if its an accomplishment that qualifies him as a professor of facts. It doesn't, and Forbes -- hello? They really ought to rely upon journalists for journalism.
Out of the mouths of babes or the Devil himself, the Truth is still the Truth. Julian Assange is only one person, technically. The 5000 new emails are still another enormous pile of evidence, nay proof, of the malfeasance. It's the same situation with Hillary and her emails. She never denied any of them, just complained about the Russian whistle-blowers--and it wasn't even them.
Worst of all, this 'Article' is merely a reference to a Daily Mail comment, a comment on a site focused on entertainment news and info about aliens and lizard men.
So, you're claiming the evidence doesn't exist, all the while ignoring the original emails and the NOAA controversy? BTW, I posted those 4 examples together specifically to show more clearly that the scientific community is not about corruption. And so far all the complaints here have presented no evidence to counter the evidence--just name calling etc. That's especially true about global warming where none of the climate crisis advocates even try to show how the Sun affects the climate, often in parallel with Mars--or do we affect the Martian climate as well?